SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the all-your-souls-are-belong-to-us dept.
Via Ars Technica:
A Central California woman claims she was fired after uninstalling an app that her employer required her to run constantly on her company issued iPhone—an app that tracked her every move 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Plaintiff Myrna Arias, a former Bakersfield sales executive for money transfer service Intermex, claims in a state court lawsuit that her boss, John Stubits, fired her shortly after she uninstalled the job-management Xora app that she and her colleagues were required to use. According to her suit (PDF) in Kern County Superior Court:
After researching the app and speaking with a trainer from Xora, Plaintiff and her co-workers asked whether Intermex would be monitoring their movements while off duty. Stubits admitted that employees would be monitored while off duty and bragged that he knew how fast she was driving at specific moments ever since she installed the app on her phone. Plaintiff expressed that she had no problem with the app's GPS function during work hours, but she objected to the monitoring of her location during non-work hours and complained to Stubits that this was an invasion of her privacy. She likened the app to a prisoner's ankle bracelet and informed Stubits that his actions were illegal. Stubits replied that she should tolerate the illegal intrusion...
Intermex did not immediately respond for comment. The suit, which claims invasion of privacy, retaliation, unfair business practices, and other allegations, seeks damages in excess of $500,000 and asserts she was monitored on the weekends when she was not working.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday May 13 2015, @06:13AM
That Iphone was issued by the company. Myrna is paying a humongous cost for personal use of that phone.
Carry the business phone only when on company time. When one is on company time, one has to do what they are told to do.
Leave the thing in the desk when you leave. Use your private personal phone for your personal calls.
If the boss insists you carry his phone on your personal time, then its not personal time, its "on-call" time, and its back to some negotiation.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:31AM
RTFA
It's not that simple. From reading the PDF, the company sounds deeply fucked.
1) She was hired under the explicit understanding that her starting employment date for full-time would be 3 months in the future, or in other words, she didn't have to leave behind her medical insurance from a previous employer.
2) She disclosed in the hiring process that she had a severe medical condition requiring doctor's supervision and treatment, hence, her need for uninterrupted medical coverage.
3) They actually agreed to all of that during the hiring process.
4) They initially gave her a phone with no strings attached, or monitoring software.
5) They *did* require her to have it powered on 24/7 so she could take calls from clients. So, she was technically, on-call 24/7 under those conditions.
6) They, only after 1-5, added the requirement that her privacy is invaded and she could not shut the phone off during non work hours.
7) They decided to get petty, and inform the previous employer that she was also working for them in order to get her fired. It worked.
Intermex is deeply fucked, IMHO, and I would award whatever multiple of millions made me smile internally enough during deliberations.
Medical coverage can quite easily be abused to coerce and manipulate employees. If she had a current condition as serious the one she described requiring the supervision, then it's entirely reasonable to desire uninterrupted coverage. This "stubits" jackass apparently wanted her hired so bad, that he offered her $7,500 a month, with the promise she could work for another company during the mandatory 3 month probation period for medical coverage at Intermex. She flat out told him up front that she couldn't have a lapse in coverage, but was willing to explore the option of working with Intermex.
Netspend isn't entirely wrong about being pissed off. She wasn't disloyal exactly, but she was headed out of the door. The only question is if Netspend reasonably expected full-time and exclusive work out of her under contract (contract is used in the PDF). Who knows, but this Stubits guy really messed up. He might have got away with some of it, but not messing with her medical coverage by interfering in her other contract. That risks putting her with no medical coverage, and a serious condition.
Now the question is, can you reasonably introduce such monitoring to previously unmonitored employee equipment? Maybe, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to test those waters with some girl that can't afford the loss of medical coverage, and I stupidly promised her the world for 3 months to get her onboard. I'm generally onboard with employee monitoring, but 24/7 is an unreasonable target, and no one can be on call 7 days a week, 24/7. Requiring that absolute doesn't make them look reasonable at all.
Gentlemen's bet that the medical coverage portion of this fiasco will end up costing them millions.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by https on Wednesday May 13 2015, @06:02PM
I'm not up on US employment and contract law, but in Canada, changing fundamental work conditions without negotiating a new contract is called "constructive dismissal" and generally lets the employee walk out the door without penalty. Without knowing California case law, I'd guess that a similar principle might apply. Then again, US law treats people who earn money by actually doing stuff like crap.
And no, I'm not going to take you up on that bet. I'm sure you'll win.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:29PM
that's one of the more significant reasons why I am generally self-employed.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:45AM
Oddly, the PDF of the court suit never gave reference to the fact of th iPhone being company issued. But i don't think that is terribly germane, when employees are instructed to always carry the phone and never turn it off.
Making 7 grand a month she could certainly afford her own iPhone.
I would just leave it in my desk every night. Maybe forward it to my own phone or a google voice number.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:25PM
it is for reasons such as this that there are certain rights one cannot sign away.
For a practical example, consider that non-compete agreements are not enforceable in California.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]